Test coverage

It’s great having unit tests, but if we only test a few parts of the solution, then there’s more chance of breaking the code base unintentionally. Still, having a few unit tests is better than having no unit tests. I’m not aware of a solid industry standard number or percentage of ideal test code coverage. Some say 80% to 95% test coverage is good, but that depends on the project. I still believe that 50% test coverage is better than 0% test coverage, and every project can be very different. The test coverage can be configured to exclude some parts of the code base as well, so having 100% test coverage does not literally mean 100% of all code in the code base is covered by automated tests. Nonetheless, it’s still good to know how much test coverage we have for our solution. For developers who are just getting started with unit testing, it’s important to point out that having a few tests is better than not writing unit tests at all. Don...